Email Feedback
Sri Lanka v India, 3rd Test, PSS, Colombo, 4th day
Sanjay Manjrekar: SL bowlers made the difference
August 11, 2008
Sri Lanka seal series win while India have many questions to answer
URL Embed
Download (9285k) | Podcast | iTunes | Comments(60)
Read Transcript
Text size: A | A

I have a feeling that Ganguly might just struggle keep his place in this Test team © AFP

Akhila Ranganna: Hello and welcome to Cricinfo Talk. I have with me former India batsman Sanjay Manjrekar to look back on Sri Lanka's convincing win over India at the P Sara stadium, a win that helped them win the series 2-1.

Sanjay, Sri Lanka were clearly the better team throughout the series - what do you think was the main difference between the two sides?

Sanjay Manjrekar: I think it was the bowling attack that made the difference. In the first innings of this series, Sri Lanka got in excess of 600 runs and that was because the Indian bowling attack wasn't good enough to restrict them to anything around 300. And again in this final Test, it was the bowling attack that made the difference. One of the other reasons was that the strength of the Indian batting was diminished because of uncertainties in the minds of the four stalwarts in the middle order.

But the real differentiating factor was the bowling attack. Chaminda Vaas, whoever the second seamer was, Ajantha Mendis and Muttiah Muralitharan were a far better attack compared to Zaheer Khan, Ishant Sharma, Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh.

AR: Sri Lanka look virtually unbeatable at home, and once they get the likes of Lasith Malinga and Dilhara Fernando back in the squad, do you think they can be a force outside their country as well, up there with the likes of South Africa and Australia?

SM: Well they won't look as good and strong as they do at home. I still feel that their batting can be exposed. I still think it is heavily dependent on Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene. There is a bit of class missing among the other batsmen and that could be tested against really good bowling attacks. There were some signs of the age factor catching up with Murali. He wasn't as vicious a spinner of the ball as he was two or three years ago. He has now got some support from Mendis which is a great help. But if foreign teams play Sri Lanka in conditions that don't suit the Lankans - on more responsive pitches where the bowling attack will be dominated by the fast men -then the Sri Lankan batting could struggle a bit. And if the opposing team can also manage Mendis, then Sri Lanka is vulnerable.

AR: India's middle order has struggled throughout this series, though VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid did show some fight in the last innings. Do you now continue to play them on the basis of their reputations, or has the time come for a change?

SM: This issue has to be tackled professionally and we tend to go the wrong way around when it comes to tackling an issue like this. It needs to be addressed by the head of Indian cricket: whether it is the president himself or a representative of the Cricket Review committee. That person along with the chairman of selectors, the current Test captain and MS Dhoni - the one-day captain - should all sit down and discuss what their plans are for Indian cricket for the next two to three years. They have to have a goal in their mind and if there is still place for some of the senior players in those goals, then they should continue with them. If not, then they need to look at who are the players they can sideline and look to get in some new blood. That is the way to go about it.

What we tend to do is, we focus on the individual: can Saurav Ganguly be dropped? No he scored runs in the last series, he can't be dropped. Can VVS Laxman be dropped? No he made a fifty in the last innings, he can't be dropped. We tend to go about it individual-based which is wrong. The decision regarding where Indian cricket should go in the next few years should be taken at the highest level and along with that, the captains should be asked whether they want certain players around or whether they want young blood in the team.

AR: But just looking at the way the four stalwarts, as you have mentioned, have played in the series, do you think they still merit a place in the middle order, given that the next Test series is against Australia at home, or is it time to give some youngsters a chance?

SM: They youngsters shouldn't be given a chance just for the sake of it. Even though they haven't shown good form in this series, it doesn't make sense to drop all form of them. There has been some form shown by Laxman and Dravid; you can't just drop all four of them because you want to get in young blood. The captain in charge - whether it is Kumble or someone else - has to decide who is going to help Indian cricket for the next few years and those players should stick around.

I believe that Sachin Tendulkar still has a lot of cricket left in him; he can still contribute to the Indian team, and so can Dravid. I have a feeling that Ganguly might just struggle to keep his place in this Test team - that is something that is quite likely. But importantly the bosses of Indian cricket have to decide where this team is headed - whether they are on the right track - and that kind of review has to happen every six months.

AR: Sri Lanka can take away many positives from this series - the biggest being the performance of Mendis, but are there any positives that India can take away at all?

SM: Yes there are a few positives that India can take out from this series. Their opening combination looks good but I would have a word with Gautam Gambhir and put some pressure on him to go and get the big scores once he gets the starts in the Tests. That really helps the team and that is how Virender Sehwag makes an impact. He gets big scores and then the poor form of some players doesn't hurt the team as much. That is something that Gambhir needs to be told very early in his career, otherwise you get into the habit of scoring 50s and 70s and being happy about it.

There was lot of spirit shown by the fast bowlers, Zaheer and Ishant in trying conditions which was excellent. Harbhajan has had an encouraging comeback. He has not had a good time in the last few months and it is good to see that he is making headlines for his bowling and not anything else. And his contribution in India's win in the second Test was a positive sign.

Jayawardene has to be one of the best captains in recent times. He is a more instinctive captain and seemed more in control of his team.His greatest contribution to the team was his faith in Mendis and in the way he used him

The wicketkeeping worries me. I think Dinesh Karthik was thoroughly exposed. Parthiv Patel was slightly better but he is missing regular collections. I think it is the responsibility of the National Cricket Academy - with Ravi Shastri and Dav Whatmore - to see why our wicketkeeping is not up to international standards. Dhoni has been fine but the two options after him have been quite disappointing.

AR: How do you think the two captains stacked up - both in terms of performance and the way they captained?

SM: I think Kumble was just being himself. That is the way he leads and has led when India has been successful in the past. He was just hurt by his own bowling form and by the poor form of some his batsmen.

Jayawardene has to be one of the best captains in recent times. He is a more instinctive captain and seemed more in control of his team, which was playing well and he has also been around for a while and is a more experienced captain than Kumble. It is easy to pick the better captain when you have a team playing so well and it is obvious that Jayawardene has come out looking good. His greatest contribution to the team was his faith in Mendis and in the way he used him.

AR: We saw the review system being trialled out - is it something that is here to stay?

SM: My biggest problem with the review system is that a lot of the attention is taken away from the game. We made some calculations and close to an hour and 45 minutes were spent on the review system. Which means, for an hour and 45 minutes, the attention was taken away from the game, and instead it was focussed on the umpires and technology. Do you want that to happen in sports? A lot of other sports have experimented with technology and they have given up on it. There is no place for technology in football or baseball; American football experimented with it and gave it up.

I am a little negative about the review system. It worked fine as an experiment: there were so many people who wanted to see how it would work so it was good to experiment with it. But at this stage, I don't like it too much. People are talking about tweaking it a little but it is again going to have so many grey areas - once you go down that road, there will always be some new technology that will make the current one that you have redundant. But we will be discussing more on this review system in the next Cricinfo Roundtable that will be coming up shortly.

AR: Thank you Sanjay for your views throughout this Test series. Until next time, it's goodbye.

Former India batsman Sanjay Manjrekar is a cricket commentator and presenter on TV. @sanjaymanjrekar

Podcast Podcast | iTunesiTunes
Comments: 60 
Email Feedback


Posted by LALITH on (August 13, 2008, 11:22 GMT)

SL could have won all 3 matches if not for the losing tactics applied by some players of SL.when shewag was batting in the 1st inngs, mahela went on defensive against the bowling of mendis.we all know shewag was not comfortable agaisnt the mistry of Mendis and could have easily made a mistake if attacked but SL allowed him to capiterlise.In the 2nd innings mahela did not bowl mendis until 25th over by then India had a lead of about 150runs.Mahela took advantage over the runs and again put defensive tactics when mendis bowled.I wonder whether mahela avoided the white wash for India to protect the Fab4 being condemned.Having so much betting happened in India it would not be a surprise to me!

Posted by Vikram on (August 13, 2008, 2:28 GMT)

I am surprised at how people are pointing out fingers at Kumble the captain. 7 months ago he was the toast of the nation when Ind beat Aus at Perth. Now he should be taken out of captaincy? Feel like laughing at such comments. What can he do if the biggest and seniormost batsmen fail to tackle SL spinners? I mean do Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly (3 former captains) and Laxman - almost 500 tests exp. combined - need motivation from captain to perform? But yes I do agree that Kumble's bowling form was woeful in this series. Lets give due credit to the new genius of spin bowling in Mendis. He was a major difference between the two teams. He was like the Kumble of old, bamboozling batsmen left right and center. As far as dropping seniors is concerned, I agree with Sanjay that the decision has to be arrived at professionally by all important people concerned with Indian Test cricket thinking 2 years ahead in time, instead of hastily dropping all of them and then regreting!

Posted by Arul on (August 12, 2008, 21:00 GMT)

On the reviews...In most cases, the batsman get the benefit of doubt. The review system brings an even playing field. Technically incorrect batsman (and cheats) will be found out; Test matches will be more result oriented (which can only enhance the game); etc.

Posted by Chetan on (August 12, 2008, 12:14 GMT)

I agree with Sanjay, and going further to whatever he has said, it certainly appeared that team lacked intent and purpose, especially senior players, you can see that by observing moments across 3 tests. In Galle, it was clear when Viru, Ishant and Bhajji tried to show positive intent and grit the things followed India's way. Similarly @ P Sara stadium, in 2nd innigs we started well again due to +ve intent it was only when middle order batters played shots lacking in intent and purpose, it quickly rubbed off to entire team. Somehow, India appeared to have been defeated in mind before they faced Mendis (or other SL bowlers). If one would have keenly observed SL was as vulnerable as India was, even last innings chasing 122 when SL lost 2 wckts in quick succession, their body language was down, it's just that India's body language was in pits

Posted by Ravish on (August 12, 2008, 11:57 GMT)

Reading these comments here, it is very clear that parochial interests are again coming into play with people defending their favorite amongst the 'supposedly' famous 4. It is clear that all four have flopped spectacularly along with their keeper and any team cannot afford so many people flopping at the same time. It is also naive to suggest that T20 was the reason they flopped without adequate proof for such an allegation. As Sanjay mentioned, it is time for selectors to take the name tags away from these players as they step into the room to select the next test team and decide purely on how each of their batsman performed for the last year, where the want the team to be in the next 3-4 years and who best fits into that strategy and go from there.Before that they need to decide on their captain for the next two years and take that person into confidence during these discussions. They need to take emotions out of the selection process.

Posted by Rajasundram on (August 12, 2008, 11:47 GMT)

It is nauseating to hear only the Indian point of view. Whether it is a cricinfo commentary (it is always India can do it - remember how Kapil Dev bowled a side out for less than 150! remember how Laxman & Dravid tamed the Aussies). Here also a few reviews are not in favour of India - scrap it - let's be natural. But if the reviews were in favour of INdia, they would be singing a different tune! Sachin acting as 5th Umpire from the pavilion was completely out of character - I now realise that my idol has feet of clay! Is Cricinfo for an unbiased reporting of cricket or is it another voice for BCCI? Sivasubramaniam - Singapore

Posted by PRIYANTHA on (August 12, 2008, 11:41 GMT)

Davaeh_cricket_analyst - if we take stats of all test batsmen you will see clear disparity in batting avergaes at home and away. This is not something unique to SL batsmen. Please remember SL has been playing test cricket since 1982 only. In first 10 yaers or so of test cricket we were given very few matches by other test playing countries. In spite of this we are building up a gradually improving away win record. This will further improve if we are given more matches and longer test series abroad. We drew last series in Eng and NZ. We twice beat Pak there 2-1 under Arjuna and Sanath. So things will change in time to come much to your dissapointment. Dont try to put us in same class as Bangladesh who deserves to be banished from test cricket. We have produced the highest wicket taker in test cricket, made highest test total, produced highest test partnership etc. You need to also consider the small resource base to pick from in a small country like SL when compared to India.

Posted by Jose on (August 12, 2008, 11:10 GMT)

It's high time for India to introspect on all areas of their lackluster performance. I am shocked to see the so-called Fab-4 lacked confidence while playing Mendis. Kumble's vapid bowling and spiritless captaincy are surely a major factor in India's debacle. He failed to strengthen middle order after 2nd test success. Coming to SL, there is nothing to boast of their batting. It is very much vulnerable to quality bowling attack (e.g. 2nd test in Galle). If they continue to depend heavily on Mendis in future, they are going to be biggest losers for sure.

Posted by Kasturi on (August 12, 2008, 10:53 GMT)

The situation will improve only when the mindset of cricket administrators and enthusiasts changes from packing team with batsmen to selecting match winning bowlers. What India need is decent batting line up and not a famed batting line which produces mediocre to less than mediocre results. The history cricket clearly informs that Matches are not won by batsman but by bowlers. Any great team or era had very good bowlers and not good batsman. We are always stuck with the contrary. Even the recent wins abroad have also come at the hardwork of bowlers. The batsman do contribute but they do effect victory. Victory lies at the hands of bowlers. As long as the selectors and BCCI are intrested in the big hitters, the result will be no different for the next 100 years. We'll be winnig occassionaly and not regularly. "Batsman save the losing matches, Bowlers win the losing matches". As long as it is not correctly understood and applied I doubt any change in the Wins column for INDIA.

Posted by ranganathan on (August 12, 2008, 10:52 GMT)

The reasons for this decacle- 1.Too much dependant on old fours.2.Ineffective spinners outside our Country.2Too much shorter version of the game.4.Too long they survived compared to all other Countries practice, irrespective of thier talents and results.5.Too much of talk shows and open display of likes and dislikes.

Solutions:1.Sack the spinners one is living beyond his life and the other one is highly ill tempered and unfit for International Cricket 2.Sack Ganguly and Lakshmanan immediately and sack the other two after one more series.for the value they carry and groom the rest.3.Another loud mouth waiting in the newer generation is Sreesanth either he learns to behave or not considered at all.4. TAME LALIT MODI who thinks he is the end of Cricket. He is the danger man like our earlier Lord who got the kick of his life.5.Bring sense to Doni and Yuvaraj if they want to be in the longer version of the game.

Comments have now been closed for this article